Diminutive Diatribes: The Power of Polish and Cunning of Commitment

            I don't want to go into a whole brain hurty discussion this week, so let's keep it simple.  I love Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.   I probably should NOT love Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.  I probably should not love Splatterhouse on the PS3.  I probably shouldn't care for a LOT of games.  And yet, I do.  Why?

Dear lord, I love this game.  So committed to being in the 40K universe and so polished besides.  This is how you do a Space Marine.

            Because these games are not only polished(okay, Splatterhouse has some technical glitches, but gameplay wise they are all super polished) but also because they are committed to what they are.  Warhammer 40K is committed to being a love letter to the 40k lore.  It is committed to being a celebration of the beauty and the horror of war and carnage.  It is so dedicated to these elements, that many other parts of the game that would be easy to complain about are actually overlooked.  In that same vein, Splatterhouse is a loving remake of the original.  It isn't a watered down T for Teen game with some cute throwaway references to the original Splatterhouse, it is full on remake.  Blood, guts, carnage, style over substance, heavy metal infused game.  In my opinion, this will actually help a game stand out and achieve a level of appreciation, even if they are lacking in other regards.

Say what you want about the game, look at this visceral detail and tell me they weren't committed to making a game called "Splatterhouse."

            Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is a third person shooter that is about space marines shooting aliens in a post-apocalyptic future world.  Sound familiar?  It should, because it's been ripped off and used by countless other more uninteresting games, like Turok, Haze, Syndicate, or any other titles.  These games failed largely because they were generic and uninspired...they didn't commit full way into their source material or into what they were trying to create, instead trying to have it both ways in many aspects to try and get as many buyers as possible.  Turok, for example, first appeared on the N64 and featured not only interesting alien species, but also dinosaurs being hunted by a Native American.  Was it stupid?  I'd say so, it featured you shooting a T-rex with a magic bow and arrow, however it was so committed to its lore, mythos, and purpose, and so polished besides, that it didn't matter if it was stupid.  it was still fun.  In the "remake" you are on an alien planet, blowing up human mercenaries and some dinosaurs as a grizzled space marine with guns...yeah, which one would you rather play?  It was trying to be a modern military shooter, like Call of Duty, but at the same time trying to cull members of the original fanbase.  It wasn't committed to the idea and it wasn't very polished besides.

Probably done this before, but...Better 1?

 

Or Better 2?  Cyborg Dinosaur vs alien gun wielding Turok...or regular Turok kicking a raptor.  Which one seems more committed to the stupid, but awesome premise?

            To me, that's kind of what makes all the difference.  Whether or not you like a game, whether or not it sold well, I think this is what makes a game, from an objective standard, pretty amazing.  Prey is a good example of this.  It features a story about Alien abduction, body horror, and the heritage of Native American mysticism.  It was at times stupid, as we have our hero slipping into a spirit world to attack the soul of an alien with spirit arrows before shooting it with guns, but it didn't wimp out...it featured tragedy and body horror, a conflicted hero, and super polished gameplay...and it was pretty amazing because of it.  And, let's not even look at some of the more unknown or so bad it's good games, let's look at critically acclaimed, successful titles, like, say...Kirby.  On the surface, it seems pretty dumb.  You are a pink puffball on an alien world who can eat enemies to absorb their powers.  Your arch enemy is a giant penguin wielding a hammer and your rival is as word wielding, bat caped swordsman.  Say all that out loud and try to say it's not dumb...but it's the commitment to the premise and how well polished it is that has made the series so endearing.  Kirby is a laid back, kid friendly experience that isn't especially dumbed down.  The mechanics are solid and polished and the commitment to the idea of this little puffball is what makes it work.  That's the truth for a lot of games.  Things as old as say, Bucky O'Hare for the NES to as recently as Bioshock Infinite.  While I may not have liked Infinite, it was committed to the idea of a story based around hyper time, it was committed to Bioshock-esque gameplay that was highly polished, and it went all in.

This rule of polish and commitment goes back to the NES era too.  How do you ground/make a game about a green, alien rabbit fighting toads more 'accessible?'  You don't need to...run with it.  Commit to the craziness.

            I'm not sure this principal can be applied to every game.  Some games seem bound and determined to be mediocre, like tie-in games, such as the Battleship movie game or the Amazing Spiderman...though, I'd like to believe that if you commit to the idea wholeheartedly and give it enough time and polish, it will turn out worthwhile.  The Puppeteer, for example, is a game about a puppet whose head was stolen and whose entire world is in a puppet show, which he can change using a pair of magic scissors.  Sony went into this whole heartedly, committing to the idea and polishing it to a mirror sheen and even if it sounds or looks silly, it's still a great game.

Some games, I just don't know if you can polish or commit to it enough to save it.  Battleship...mediocre movie, mediocre/terrible game.

            That also brings up another good question, though.  Can a game go too far with its commitment?  I don't want to say yes, because some developers would use that as a crutch to only do the work necessary to get a game made for a deadline rather than giving it the love, respect, and care it deserved, but...let's just say, I believe it's a delicate balance.  Splatterhouse, I wish we had more of.  Largely because the game ended on a cliffhanger, but also because it was a game that not only paid homage to the original, but also paid homage to horror tropes of the past...and I'd have liked to see a few more of those.  A monster from the black lagoon, a spectre from the after life, a laboratory full of experimental nightmares...it would have been great.  However, Warhammer 40K: Space Marine?  I want a sequel, certainly, but the game itself was perfectly well paced and contained all it needed to.  Rather than trying to balance multiple worlds and campaings, it was set all on a single planet, with just enough of the monsters from the Warhammer 40K universe to satiate fans.  References were made to other races, like Tau, Eldar, and Tyrannid, but it focused on the Orks and the Chaos soldiers.  It featured a complete story, about a planet under siege and saved by the Ultramarines, and while it may have ended on something of a downer, it was still satisfying.

I want polish and commitment, but I don't think you need to throw everything and the kitchen sink.  It's a balancing act.

 

Slight spoilers, but I for one am glad we did NOT have a daemon prince in this game...because...really...we didn't need it.  Woulda been cool, sure, but the game had enough and was so well put together and paced that it was unnecessary.

            To me, this is what makes a game fun and interesting...if it's committed to the world it's built and polished enough so as to be fun.  Any kind of game can be made, even something like a re-imagining of Dante's Inferno or a dating sim game with giant robots...if you commit and make a polished experience, then it will be fun and worthwhile, even if not everyone likes it.

Sakura Wars...dating sim mech fighting game.  And yet, it worked for me because it was so committed to the anime-esque insanity.

            This is something I'd like others to remember and take to heart.  If a game has passion, even if you don't like it, at least try to recognize that.  Whether or not it rips off gameplay or whatever, if it's fun, polished, and committed to it's story, world or whatever, then acknowledge it.  And for the developers, put passion into your work.  Even if a premise is stupid, don't compromise it for the sake of profit or because you think people won't be able to accept it.  Look at Katamary Damacy, after all...nothing like it on earth, and yet it's become a phenomenon.

I guess the best way to put it is, go hard or go home.  Katamary Damacy was polished and committed to the premise...and it worked.  It worked amazingly well.

            All that being said, forget what I said about how I SHOULDN'T like Splatterhouse or Warhammer 40K: Space Marine.  I like the lore of both games, the story, I like the commitment they put in, and they're both polished enough to be fun.  So...screw being ashamed, screw the idea of guilty pleasures...I like what I like and I like those two games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all.

I love this game.  Not ashamed.  It gripped me and dragged me into it's world...and I loved it, all the way.

            Also, just a short afterword here.  Once or twice in May, I will be unable to make my usual weekly quota, either because I have company, so I won't have the time/energy/focus to write, or because I will be going to a convention to sell wares of mine, for the sake of making some much needed cash.  What am I selling?  Why PERLERS OF COURSE!!!  You can see my back log, here.  Just want people to know, because I will be making an update telling them, but...I like giving advance notice.  I hope to get at least one more creator spotlight in before I have to take my days off, whenever they might be.